Category Archives: Miscellaneous

Supply Chain Humor This Week VIII

Today I bring you three more spenderific stories from the hat of The Satirical Sourcerer.

Cost Avoidance 101:
Stop spending ridiculous amounts of money on things that you know millions of people will try to break immediately. Australia spent $84.4 Million on a ‘porn filter’ for the internet. A 16 year old cracked it in 30 minutes. A predictable ‘Oops’. (News Australia)

Okay. Basic filters like NetDog are $24.99. What’s the other $84,399,975.01 for? If I was the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), I’d be launching a full blown fraud investigation.

What company has released a report that says they save their clients on average 7.3% per year more than they did in 2004?
The same company also has a new slogan entitled “Save Money. Live Better“.
Iasta? Ariba? A sourcing consulting firm? Give up?

It’s Walmart. According to Wal-Mart, research commissioned from Global Insight demonstrates that as of 2006, the retailer has saved U.S. families $2,500 a year, up $7.3% from $2,329 in 2004.

But one has to wonder if the good times are over, because this picture, taken this month, seems to indicate that prices are actually rising … steeply … 21.5% to be precise!

How to combat the decline in the US dollar:
Remember the Pizza for Pesos (Dallas Business News) story? Well here is yet another update: Things have went so well since the company started accepting pesos, that 8 months later they have 6 more stores, with plans for 15 more by the end of ’07, and 40 more by the end of ’08. Now several other companies are considering following suit.

In the North? Then try Take-Out for Twonies! After all, the Canadian dollar is par now!


Bonus Story!

Would you like your coffee leaded or unleaded?

The organization running the West Coast Green conference in San Francisco this week ordered paper cups from the lowest cost supplier which, surprise, surprise, was located in China. But at least these cups came with a warning: Caution: Contains Lead.

My Thoughts on the Ariba – Procuri – Emptoris Circus

This post has been updated in My Thoughts on the Ariba – Procuri – Emptoris Circus: Extended Edition . The reader is strongly urged to check out that post instead.


Ariba’s [acquired by SAP] buying Procuri [acquired by Ariba]! The gorilla-marketing vultures of Emptoris [acquired by IBM, sunset in 2017] are trying to capitalize on it! It’s so unexciting and uninnovative that I’d rather have Keith Jackson‘s job and stop-watch how long the evaporation and ultra-violet breakdown processes actually take when a thin sheet of latex changes from a liquid to solid state.

But since I’m probably not going to get any peace until I offer my thoughts on the matter, here are summaries of the conversations that I think took place in the Ariba Executive suite before the first offer, the Procuri Boardroom when the offer was seriously being considered, and the Emptoris marketing cage when word leaked that a tentative agreement was reached.

Scene 1: The Ariba Executive Suite. Yakko, Wakko, and Dot are sitting solemn and anxious around a big table late last year.

Yakko: Our stock price is dropping!
Wakko: Our profits in danger of stopping!
Dot:   And our boss is very unhappy with us.
Yakko: We need a new idea.
Wakko: But we’ve already tried IKEA!
Dot:    And that kid who used to ride the spiffy short bus!
Yakko: If we don’t do something fast …
Wakko: We might run out of gas …
Dot:    Or at least champagne shooters!
Yakko: We need to make innovation!
Wakko: We need to take back the sourcing nation!
Dot:   We need to go to … Hooters!
Yakko:  Yes, those are lovely owls!
Wakko:  Lets give them our towels!
Dot:    And then order in Chinese.
Yakko:  I’m a bit grumbly …
Wakko:  And I’m a bit humbly …
Dot:    And I like to swing in the breeze!
Yakko:  Maybe we should get some fresh air!
Wakko:  The air is stale around my chair!
Dot:    And our food is at the door!
Yakko:  I’ll pay for it!
Wakko:  Pay … that’s it … we need to pay for it!
Dot:    What do we have to pay for?
Yakko:  Something .. we’re here for something …
Wakko:  That’s right … something …
Dot:    Yes … we need … to raise … profits!
Yakko:  But we have no ideas …
Wakko:  And we can’t sell IKEA …
Dot:    And the big guy’s taking fits …
Yakko:  So why don’t we just buy some!
Wakko:  Yes, it will be so much fun!
Dot:    And we might even get some cash out of it too!
Yakko:  But we have lots of software …
Wakko:  Yes! It’s right over there …
Dot:    And we’ve even got a network to woo!
Yakko:  But we don’t have every single buyer!
Wakko:  It could be because our prices are higher!
Dot:    Or because our competition has more SaaS!
Yakko:  So let’s just buy ’em!
Wakko:  Then we’ll have show’d ’em!
Dot:    With a good swift boot to the *ss!
Yakko:  We’ll get all the revenues!
Wakko:  In all the glorious green hues!
Dot:    And maybe even the mid-market too!
Yakko:  So, who do we buy?
Wakko:  Who’s on-demand with the biggest slice of pie?
Dot:    Covered in anchovie stew!
Yakko:  I know! Procuri!
Wakko:  They’re always in a hurry!
Dot:    To take deals from us!
Yakko:  Then we’ll have the buyers!
Wakko:  And our revenues will be higher!
Dot:    And our boss will finally give us the short bus!

Scene 2: The Procuri Boardroom … a few months ago. The Goodfeathers have just entered.

Squit: As far back as I can remember …
Pesto: Do you think you amuse me with your rambling? Do You!
Bobby: You talkin’ to me? YOU TALKIN’ TO ME?
Squit: I’m not talkin’ to you!
Pesto: Dat’s it!
Thwok! (Pesto conks Squit.)
Pesto: Now why are we here?
Bobby: We have to make a decision.
Squit: Are we gonna off someone? Are we? Are we?
Pesto: I hope so! I want to cap some ‘caps!
Bobby: No … we’re not capping anyone. We’re here to talk about a deal.
Squit: Why?
Pesto: I still want to pop off a few!
Bobby: Guys! Guys! We’re not in that business anymore! Remember! Those days are behind us! Way behind us! Over a decade ago. Well before Procuri.
Squit: I know, I know. But I’m bored.
Pesto: And I’m anxious!
Bobby: Yes … so let’s get down to business.
Squit: What are we here for today?
Pesto: The usual briefings?
Bobby: No, someone made us an offer.
Squit: An offer?
Pesto: An offer?
Bobby: Yes, an offer … for Procuri.
Squit: How much?
Pesto: How soon?
Bobby: A fairly large amount … in the near future.
Squit: What’s the multiple?
Pesto: Is it what we’d hoped for?
Bobby: Not what we’d hope for … but not bad either. I think we should consider it. We’ve been in this particular game a long time … and I think it’s time that we move on.

Scene 3: The Emptoris Marketing Cage … late Wednesday night.

Pinky: Gee, Brain. Ariba’s buying Procuri! Narf! What do we do? Zort?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, try to take over the (sourcing) world!
Pinky: Zoink! But how are we going to do that, Brain? Ariba just hit a home run? Right? Blip!
Brain: FUD!
Pinky: Fud? FUD? Yeah! What’s FUD?
Brain: Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt! We’re going to convince them that Chicken Little was right! That the sky is falling!
Pinky: The sky’s falling? THE SKY’S FALLING!!! HELP!
Brain: Yes, that’s the general idea!
Pinky: We have to take cover! Narf! COVER! Zort!
SMACK!
Pinky! That smarts! WhatchaDothat for, Brain?! Zoink!
Brain: You idiot! The sky’s not falling. We’re just going to convince the dimwitted masses that the sky is falling.
Pinky: So they’ll buy metal umbrellas? I’ve always wanted a shiny metallic umbrella, Brain! Can I have one? Please? Oh Please? Please?
THWOP!
Pinky: Oww! Owowowowow!
Brain: No dipstick! We want them to think that the rug is being pulled out from under them!
Pinky: … but that sounds scary, Brain!
Brain: Yes! And that’s the point! We want them to think that their applications, support, and service are going to disappear over night! They’ll be terrified … and looking for a better answer.
Pinky: An answer? I’d like one of those!
Brain: Yes … and we’ll be that answer! We’ll bombard the media! The only other name they’ll see is ours! We’ll pack it with reassuring messages that only we have an integrated solution! That only we are pure! That only we can support them without a hitch for as long as they need us! And …
Pinky: And …
Brain: That only we’ll give them credit for investments they’ve made in our competitors … that only we will give them up to a year free!
Pinky: I like Free!
Brain: Yes … everyone likes free … but it won’t be … It Won’t Be …
Pinky: So we’ll be – what do you call it … bending the truth again — just like our “one” product is really Zeborg, Intigma, ValueEdge, MindFlow, Dicarta …
Thwap! Clonk!
Brain: I told you to never speak of that again!
Pinky: Sorry!
Brain: But it will work! It will work! The sheep will panic and run to us! We’ll let them in and count their dollars one million by one million by one million!
Pinky: And then we’ll rule the (sourcing) world? Narf!
Brain: Yes Pinky, then we’ll rule the (sourcing) world!


“The ‘truthiness’ is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news … at you.”
Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report


P.S. The satirical play above is the only post I’m going to make on this subject. If you’re interested in having this relatively uninteresting and uninnovative piece of news analyzed seven ways from Sunday, please look elsewhere. This blog is about sourcing innovation, not merger, acquisition, and marketing frenzy. At the end of the day it’s what the solution can do for you, and not who owns it that’s important. Have a good weekend.

Crouching IBM, Hidden Accenture

Every now and again I search for Sourcing Innovation on Google, expecting to find this blog and companion website [resource site removed in the late 2010s], a few Spend Matters posts, Nine Sigma, a service for innovation seekers looking to hook up with innovative solution providers using open innovation, and maybe the Wikipedia definition for innovation. But I recently ran the search, and what did I find in the top 5? IBM with their “Innovation Sourcing” white paper and Accenture with their “Innovation Sourcing Strategy Matters” research report. And, especially in the former case, what nerve!

According to IBM, innovation sourcing is the term used to collectively describe the assets, processes, and techniques used in outsourcing contracts to drive innovation. I have to disagree. As far as I’m concerned, innovation sourcing is innovated sourcing and innovated sourcing is any sourcing endeavor you do that applies innovation – be it outsourcing, insourcing, category sourcing, or personnel sourcing. And the innovation doesn’t have to to be restricted to processes and techniques – it could be the technology you employ, the location of alternate materials, or even finding a way to bypass sourcing altogether. Now I know I should be flattered that they used my blog as their inspiration for suggesting a way to take outsourcing to the next level, but they could at least get it right!

In Accenture’s paper, penned by the Institute for Strategic Change back in 2003, they noted that although many companies are increasing their reliance on external sourcing for innovation, most of them lack an innovation sourcing strategy that would not only help them decide what combination of internal and external sources they should consider but how to leverage those resources throughout the innovation chain. This is important because a good innovation sourcing strategy can open up new doors, delivery quality results faster, cut the cost of innovation, facilitate priority calls, and even stimulate internal innovation while the lack of such a strategy carries risks and costs.

According to Accenture, a good innovation sourcing strategy, which should be holistically driven, addresses five questions:

  • What is the organization’s innovation strategy, including desirable domains and end products for innovation?
  • What are the key sourcing principles?
  • What are the firm’s innovation sourcing channels and what needs do they address?
  • How are the interfaces across channels identified and managed?
  • What international organization mechanisms need to be established to leverage external sourcing effectively?

Not bad … but what about Why?? And, more importantly, Why?? First of all, you can’t develop an effective innovation sourcing strategy unless you know why you should have such a strategy, and how it could help you source better. And secondly, you need to know why you want a strategy. Because a strategy takes commitment, and that takes drive.


Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, Mz. Dawson is Sassy … and so am I!

What’s the Key to Effective Purchasing?

CAPS Research latest Practix, “The Key to an Effective Purchasing System: Is It Technology or Supplier Relationship Management?”, by Keah Choon Tan asks whether sophisticated and often expensive information technology is the only solution to improve competitiveness in response to the tremendous pressures of globalization and increasingly demanding customers. The study describes the lean but highly efficient supply management system of a world-class casino-hotel chain that emphasizes strategic supplier relationships over implementation of sophisticated information technology and that has developed a supply management system founded on a contemporary management philosophy that stresses long-term, mutually beneficial relationships, trust, and sole sourcing.

The goal of the article was to demonstrate that an effective supply management policy can be the key to managing the supply function effectively. The policy emphasizes the formation of strategic alliances to achieve the lowest total acquisition cost, rather than forcing suppliers to bid on each purchase – since this approach tend to focus on short term measures such as unit price. Once the strategic alliances are formed, the best suppliers are selected for each item based on quality, reliability, delivery, and total acquisition costs and blanket orders are issued. Furthermore, to update and continuously improve centralized blanket orders, the company has processes in place to enable suppliers to solicit new business and chefs to request and receive samples and pricing information.

In addition to sole sourcing, the company also employs supplier performance monitoring, continuous evaluation, and competitive bidding when a new product, or source, is needed. The company also has well-defined, rigid, supplier selection criteria which include competitive pricing, quality standards, reliable services, processes, and delivery, the ability to provide niche product and design concepts, financial stability, provision of warranties, insurance and bonding, proven performance standards, and excellent service and support.

The study then deduces that implementing an appropriate process is the key to solving business challenges, and information technology is merely a tool to facilitate the process. Furthermore, the study notes that the process has led to time savings, cost savings, accuracy, waste elimination, and improved control without the support of much in the way of information technology.

Although I’d have to agree that the process is key, I don’t think the study stresses enough that it was based on the restaurant services arm of a casino hotel chain that has only eight locations, all of which require essentially the same items. This is not very sophisticated supply management. For an operation of this size, good processes backed by Excel and Access are pretty much guaranteed to get results (but not necessarily great results, especially from an efficiency standpoint).

Thus, although it’s a good report – it’s also a dangerous one. There’s no way this would work for a major fast food chain if it did not have good sourcing and procurement systems to back such a strategy up. Although tools alone do not a successful sourcing process make, without tools, the supply management team of any chain of even just a few dozen locations would quickly become swamped under information overload and be unable to keep track of who is supposed to ship what where, whether or not performance is acceptable, whether or not quality is acceptable, and whether or not they are truly getting the best price. Although a sole source strategy backed up only by good supplier management is often a great approach for a small business, without good technology to back it up, it just doesn’t scale!


A fool and his money are soon parted … don’t be a fool!

Spend Analysis Today

The state of spend analysis today, despite all the frenzied M&A activity between 2003 and 2005, is still a fractured and confusing one. There are about thirty (30) vendors selling solutions in the market-place, and only a handful are reselling or repackaging someone else’s solution. However, the big difference between today and a few years back is that there are only a couple of true stand-alone vendors left on the market, notably BIQ and Zycus, as most of the stand-alone vendors were swallowed up by the Big 6.

What makes it even more confusing is that, even though most of the vendors have their own solutions, it sounds like the vast majority are selling the same type of solution. Furthermore, based on all of the overlapping marketing, it appears that most of the vendors are trying to differentiate themselves based upon either the “intelligence” in their data classification algorithms, or the number of canned reports their application comes with – not on any obviously unique capabilities.

Although it is true that it’s impossible to do spend analysis without good data, and this requires your data to be as complete and as accurate as possible (at least 90%, but preferably as close to 99% as possible), which means that any good spend analysis solution needs good ETL (extract, transform, load) and automated classification capabilities, it’s also true that spend analysis is more than just classification and baseline reporting. Spend Analysis is about uncovering previously unknown savings opportunities. Such opportunities are not likely to be found with standard reports, since obvious opportunities are likely to have already been found and addressed by in-house analysts using basic SQL queries and simple reports. Thus, spend analysis must go beyond what a simple reporting engine can do or what your average analyst can do with SQL in order to be truly useful and find genuinely new savings opportunities.

In other words, creating an OLAP database on cleansed spend transactions will be a worthwhile effort the first time you do it, because you will be able to identify most of the obvious savings opportunities by way of variance and non-compliance. However, once you have addressed those “low hanging fruit” opportunities, there will be little residual value to the effort as it will simply report the success you have already achieved and fail to identify any new opportunities. In order to realize the true power of spend analysis, a user needs the ability to “play” with the OLAP database the same way she can currently “play” with the standard reports in Excel spreadsheets. It’s not about pivoting around the standard cube, but being able to create your own cube with your own data and your own dimensions and slice and dice those dimensions in any way you can dream up in your quest for that next savings opportunity.

When you find that opportunity, it’s about capturing the process used to derive the opportunity and re-applying it in an automated fashion to similar commodities and categories and to the same commodity and category again in the future to make sure that the identified improvements get implemented and stay implemented so that you realize the savings. This certainly requires that you have an instance of the application running a standard cube that is integrated with your contract management system and your procurement system to make sure you are continually buying on contract – but it also requires that you have the ability to build multiple cubes to address commodity-specific analyses and to address datasets that originate from sources other than the ERP system.

When you get right down to it, only two solutions on the market stand out – Zycus and BIQ [acquired by Opera Solutions, rebranded ElectrifAI]. The two last independent players. Zycus stands out because, in addition to the advanced extraction, cleansing, aggregation, and enrichment capabilities that you will find in the other Big 4 players (Emptoris [acquired by IBM, sunset in 2017], Ketera [acquired by Deem], Procuri [acquired by Ariba, acquired by SAP), it has built a first generation opportunity finder that goes beyond just pre-packaged standard reports to integrate variance analysis and market intelligence to automatically identify all of your “low hanging fruit” opportunities and included a pipeline-based workflow management process to attack and manage your initiatives.

BIQ (also available as part of Iasta [acquired by Selectica, merged with b-Pack, rebranded Determine, acquired by Corcentric] Smart Analytics) stands out because it is the only product on the marketplace that truly gives the user the ability to “play” with the OLAP database. In BIQ, each user has the ability to define their own cube, either on any of the “standard” dimensions in the centralized data warehouse (which could be another spend analysis platform or an ERP system) or on any dimension they want to define using BIQ’s capability to define new dimensions in near real time. Plus, the user can re-order the dimensions of the cube for reporting purposes at any time, dynamically create their own reports, and even analyze multiple dimensions simultaneously using treemaps (based on Shneiderman diagrams) and multidimensional extract capabilities. Finally, there’s BIQ’s unique ability to allow users to define and re-define the classification rules dynamically using a very powerful rules engine, and their forthcoming meta-rollup capability (programmatic rollup of rolled-up data).

In short, spend analysis is about the analysis, and, currently, with the exception of BIQ, that’s a point that the current (leading) vendors are failing to grasp. Like Aberdeen, they’re Lost in the Trees. Now it’s true that BIQ does not come with built-in facilities that will automatically classify 95%-plus of your spend, but spend classification is fundamentally not that hard to do. The secret sauce to do that has been known by your leading consulting firms for years: map the vendors, map the GL codes, map the vendor and GL code combinations and then create exception based rules for whatever is left or whatever doesn’t map properly. This is something that can be done by a tactical procurement agent or accounting clerk in a short time frame in even the largest of Fortune 100 companies – at a very reasonable cost. (So why are you paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for technology to do it for you?)

There’s no excuse not to look at any tool that gives you better analysis capabilities when even a basic ETL tool can do what you need to do with a little bit of elbow grease up front. Especially since I’ve heard good arguments that automated classification does not really exist. After all, what are automated classifiers doing? They’re applying rules. Where did those rules come from? A human being. The only real difference between the big solutions with enhanced classification capabilities and the little solutions with basic classification capabilities is that the big solutions have rules that have been defined, or in the case of automatically derived rules, checked by experts based on years of doing manual spend analysis projects for their clients. (Furthermore, I haven’t seen a classifier yet that has not required heavy human intervention on the back end to correct mistakes – especially during the initial implementation. And, despite what the sales people would have you believe, this often takes just as much effort, if not more, than simply having a knowledgeable human define the rules in the first place.) The underlying technology, fundamentally speaking, is not that different. It’s true that some of the algorithms employed by the big players are a lot more advanced, but they are still based on rules and knowledge derived originally from a human. As I’ve said before, computers are not intelligent. They are just very good at doing the calculations they’ve been programmed to do.

Furthermore, even if you have a spend analysis tool already, there’s nothing stopping you from employing a dual-tool approach – a standard Big 4 (or Big 6 when you throw Ariba [acquired by SAP] and CGI into the mix) solution to automatically extract, cleanse, classify, amalgamate, and track all of your spend data from your various data sources in a standard cube setup and then a BIQ (-like) solution that can be delivered on-demand to the members of your strategic sourcing team to help them find the next great savings opportunity. The standard solution will be able to automatically create all of the reports that finance and the executive team want to see while the BIQ (-like) solution will give the power users on your strategic sourcing team the tool they need to uncover the next level of savings opportunities. Plus, a BIQ (-like) solution is on-demand and relatively inexpensive (for example, BIQ only runs your average organization between $3K and $6K a month for the sourcing team), especially compared to the realizable savings it will identify. It’s certainly something that should be considered.

Up Next: So You Want To Do Spend Analysis (7 Starting Steps)


Note that this isn’t to say that suite-vendors like Ariba, Emptoris, Ketera, and Procuri (etc.) don’t have valuable solutions – they do (and I’ve even written about some of them on this blog in the past), just that, on their own, their spend analysis solutions don’t truly achieve the analysis necessary for your sourcing team to go beyond the low hanging fruit – which is the key to achieving year-over-year savings (even if these systems do work great the first year). From a finance perspective, they are pretty good – centralized cube, standard reports, automated feeds, automated classification, etc. etc. – they just don’t have everything the power hitters on your sourcing team need today!


I have an opinion. How ’bout you?